Full Judgment
2. Learned counsel for the Union of India submits that the Employment file relating to petitioner and also the letter by which the Employment Exchange had forwarded the name of the petitioner have been made available by the concerned authority for perusal of this Court in the light of orders passed earlier on 16-5-2008 and 12-7-2010.
3. On hearing the parties it is found that there is serious dispute over certain documents as well as material facts. The only admitted facts are that the petitioner was appointed as EDDA, Kharenda by order dated 20th September, 2001 and he joined that post on 5-1-2002 but his services were terminated without any notice on 13-2-2003. It appears that even before the petitioner's appointment; on 3-8-2001 the department had issued another notification/requisition calling for names from the Employment Exchange for filling up one post at Kharenda. According to learned counsel for the petitioner this post was of Extra Departmental Mail Carrier ( EDMC) which fell vacant later and not the post of Extra Departmental Delivery Agent (EDDA) which had fallen vacant, on 15-10-1999 and which was, according to petitioner, notified/requisitioned earlier leading to petitioner's appointment.
4. The private respondent has subsequently been appointed, according to respondents, on the post of EDDA which was held by the petitioner as appears from the order of appointment in respect of respondent no.5 dated 20th February, 2003 contained in annexure-I to his counter affidavit. That order mentions that the said post had become available for appointment on account of termination of services of the petitioner by order dated 31-1-2003 of Superintendent of Post Offices, Rohtas Division contained in annexure-2. The post has been described as GDS Mail deliverer in place of EDDA.
5. Under the relevant rules which are mentioned in the order of termination passed against the petitioner, no notice is required for termination of service and post in question under the Gramin Dak Sewa is not a civil post under the State. Hence, the petitioner has neither the protection of service rules nor Article 311 of the Constitution of India. However, submission has been advanced that the respondents are authorities of State belonging to Postal Department and hence their action should be fair and on that touchstone the Tribunal should have looked into the relevant records to find out whether there existed any good or valid reason to terminate the service of the petitioner. Thus, learned counsel for the petitioner has taken a stand that even if it be accepted that the petitioner had no right to have a show cause notice or to receive a reasoned order, when the facts created a doubt that the action is arbitrary, the authorities must show the relevant records to meet the allegation of unfair or arbitrary treatment. The learned Tribunal has not considered the matter in this light and findings of fact are not clear.
6. In the light of aforesaid submission this Court has the option either to peruse the original records in the possession of learned counsel for Union of India and record its own findings or to remit the matter back to the learned Tribunal to find out from the records whether there existed some good reason for terminating the services of the petitioner without any notice in terms of the rules and to find out the contents of different requisitions/ modification and also of the recommendation of the Employment Exchange which would show whether only the name of the petitioner was recommended by the Employment Exchange or other names were also recommended.
7. The impugned order of the Tribunal, in our view, requires to be set aside for the reason that the case has not been considered in its proper perspective and basic facts are not clear. In the facts and circumstances of the case, we are of the view that the original records should be produced by the authorities before the learned Tribunal so that as a court of original jurisdiction the Tribunal may go into the records and other relevant materials to record its own findings. If the petitioner is dissatisfied with the findings of the learned Tribunal, in that event the petitioner will have the option to move this Court. Accordingly, we set aside the impugned order and remit the matter to the learned Tribunal to find out on the basis of records, whether termination of service of the petitioner was for valid reasons or it was an arbitrary and unfair action to accommodate others.
8. It is made clear that we have not gone into the merits of the issues decided by the Tribunal and it is open for the Tribunal to re-decide the matter on the basis of records and in the light of observations made above, as per law. The writ petition is allowed to the aforesaid extent. There shall be no order as to costs.